I was interested in those mirrors with built in lcd tvs until I found out they cost between $2,500 and $6,000 for a smallish mirror and 8-10" screen. If anyone knows where this stuff comes cheap, please let me know.
3,300 watts to iron a shirt? And for 8 minutes? My iron consumes about 300 watts or less than 1/10 of what that machine consumes. To iron one shirt, my iron is usually "on" for about 4-5 minutes (about 2 minutes to get it warmed up and 3 minutes to iron the shirt). The iron actually toggles on and off to stabilize the temperature so that the surface doesn't get too hot. This would mean that it isn't even on for the full three minutes while ironing. Anyway, if that machine consumes 3,300 watts for 8 minutes to iron one shirt I'm flabbergasted. That would mean that it would take 440 watt-hours of electricity or about 7 cents (here in Hawaii it's about 15 cents/kWh) to iron one shirt. My iron, on the other hand, consumes about 25 watt-hours or less than one half of one cent. That's nearly 20 times more energy than my iron.
If I'm going to waste that much energy to iron my shirt, I'd rather spray some water on it and toss it back in the dryer (which consumes about 3,000 watts) for 10 minutes. That'll take care of the wrinkles, save me $1,700 and a lot of space.
Since we're on the topic, could someone tell me what is available out there to power my laptop off solar energy? I'm looking for something compact enough to fit in my laptop bag. I would also use it to charge my digital video recorder. I know they are pricey but I'm willing to spend up to $300 or $400 if it does everything I want it to.
So what if global warming is not caused by humans? If it really is a farce we should just continue to burn coal and oil to provide electricity and pump absurd amounts of gasoline into our vehicles, right? Well, last checked, burning gas, coal, or oil also produces other nasty pollutants (other than CO2) that cause awful things like acid rain and kill little children with asthma and other breathing ailments. Burning fossil fuels is not just causing global warming, it's screwing up the air we breathe. Isn't that reason enough to want to find alternatives???
The later of your reponse is true but this doesn't necessarily make the Li-Ion battery be disadvantaged. The circuit is meant to protect the battery from overcharge, overdischarge, overcurrent, and in some cases, temp protection. Granted Li-Ion batteries can "vent with flame" if proper circuits are not incorporated into their circuit, the ability of the cell, or should I say the propensity of the cell to do this forces manufacturers of Li-Ion packs to install these complex, often expensive PCM (protection control modues) into the packs. Many NiMH lack any kind of control whatsoever, minus the regulation in the battery charger itself. Also, what's nice about having these protection circuits built into the Li-Ion cells is the batteries become much easier to charge. Contrary to belief, a Li-Ion charger need only be a constant voltage/constant current charger with precise voltage control (+/-.05V per cell). Most advanced lead acid chargers are much more complex.
NiMH does not necessarily last longer than Li-Ion batteries. In fact, they usually have lower life cycles. Almost all Li-Ion cells (even the cheapo ones) are rates to >80% of initial capacity after 500 cycles. Most NiMH batteries are good to about the same or sometimes less. The reason why Li-Ion cells often die prematurely is not the result of the cell dying per se, but rather the protection circuit not allowing the battery to supply current or take a charge because the voltage has dropped below a permissable point (usually about 1.75V per cell) Once that happens, you cannot revive the pack unless you bypass the PCM, which is sometimes possible. It's quite sad that many Li-Ion packs hit the trash can prematurely, with life still left in their cells.
From my experience, the only disadvantage of Li-Ion vs NiMH is cost. Li-Ion is currently 2-3 times the cost of comparable capacity NiMH batteries.
NiMH is decidely the lesser of two batteries (compared to Li-Ion chemistry). There is not a single advantage of NiMH over Li-Ion. Not one. Apparently, you were sleeping through batteries 101.
Is the farmer compensated for the effect the turbines' shadows will have on his crops?
In a word - YES. In fact most farmers would jump on the opportunity to have an electric utility pay them to lease their land. In most cases, the land remains 99% usable (in its original form).
Plants on the north side of a single turbine will get less sunlight per day the closer it is to the turbine, with the land adjacent to the turbine unusable for growing much of anything.
Ummm, have you seen a wind turbine? - they are tall and skinny. Yes, you will lose considerable sunlight near the base of the turbine on the north side (granted you are in the upper latitudes) but the sun also rides on an east-west axis as well so that tall skinny pole will only block out a small area (at max about 50% of the width of the base of the turbine). The turbine itself is so high that the shading effect is negligible (in terms of excessive shading in one concentrated area). I wish I had that study I read from Zond Wind that summarized the impact that wind turbines have on the land in which they are installed. The biggest problem with wind turbines is not really so much the fact that they take up so much land (as most of the land used is either "useless" or "hybridable" because of steep rolling hills) but rather because they kill migratory birdies and they are unsightly (read ugly). Another application is off-shore wind turbines that take up ZERO land. But you can complain that they make a shadow and disrupt proper plankton and coral growth.
"The average home consumes approx 22 kWh/day."
I see you used the word "average." Averaged over a week? A month? A year? What ranges of latitudes were included in this average? What's the standard deviation from that average?
Huh? I'll say it again verbatim - the average home consumes approx 22 kWh/day. What doesn't make sense? When I mean home, I mean house - not apartments, which inherently consume less energy. "Average" means some homes may consume 50 kWh/day and some will consume 12 kWh/day. 22 kWh is an AVERAGE for ALL homes. It's also clear in my statement that the average is per DAY. So I'm not sure why you ask my week, month or year???
Let me put this another way: How much electricity does a house at around 37 degrees north latitude in the middle of January need?
I couldn't even try to answer that question. There are much too many variables!! First of all, it makes a huge difference where you are located, the topography, the altitude, etc. If you were in the west at 37 degrees you'd likely get a ton of sun compared to that if you were in the east at the same latitude.
Using that average number pretty much assumes that the house has some sort of energy storage system that can store up energy surpluses and hold onto it for months at a time with manageable loss, as well as able to return that energy with a power output similar to the solar cells themselves. Hydrogen might work here, but then there's the NIMBY issue.
There are a million means to store energy - hydrogen (least mature), super capacitors, water reservoirs (hydro turbine based), flywheels, and batteries (PbA being most mature). There are downsides to all of them but in order to embrace solar technology today, we don't need them. We can use solar to shave our peak loads during the day. The sun happens to shine when utilities demands are greatest. So why not take advantage of it?? We could increase solar installations by a factor of 10,000 and we still won't even come close to needing storage to help reduce our dependence on any other kind of electric generation. That's the bottom line. You make a point that solar is better is some places than others. But in those places were solar is attractive why not move forward???
Going all solar or all wind, for example, means clearing a lot of land that might otherwise be natural wilderness.
Well, that statement itself is false. Generally speaking, land has to be cleared to make way for wind turbines but there is a heck a lot of land out there used for the farming industry of which can be used to place wind turbines. When placed on land used for, let's say, raising cattle, the wind turbines are not requiring any additional stripping of land.
In regards to solar, the average home has approx 2,000 sq ft of rooftop. The average home consumes approx 22 kWh/day. A 4 kilowatt photovoltaic system that takes up approx 350 sq ft of roof space (18% of the rooftop) will provide enough power for the entire home. Also, most office buildings (3 stories or less) and warehouses have enough rooftop space to provide >80% of their own power needs. So solar doesn't require any additional land to power at least virtually all homes, low-rise apartments, small office buildings, and all warehouses. So this leaves the power hungry power plants and tall buildings but houses can actually provide some power for these energy dense properties. In Germany, for example, they have enormous incentives for those that sell power back to the grid. A single home could provide enough power to several homes or even augment that of a nearby high-rise building. Even tall buildings can have pv systems installed into their glass windows to supply at least a small percentage of their power needs. All in all, I'm sure we could supply at least 50-60% of all electrical needs with solar if we took advantage of existing rooftop space. 50-60% is a whole heck lot more than the.02% we got now and it doesn't require any stripping of precious land.
"In some other countries, stopping a stolen car remotely is illegal and you could end up being sued if there is an accident," he said. "We don't have that restriction, we just shut it off."
What if they just shut it down when the car made a stop or slowed to 10 mph? That wouldn't be as unsafe as slamming the brakes at 60 mph. Would we Americans still want to sue? Sorry, stupid question.
"Trakker's Chief Operating Officer Omar Hatmi says the system has now been installed in 12,000 vehicles in Pakistan and attracts 500 new customers a month, paying up to 43,000 rupees ($740) for installation and $17 monthly"
I'd pay $740 to install a system like that on my $22,000 Honda. Heck, my insurance discount alone for having this device in my car should be close to $17/month. I get $4.50/month off my premium for a practically useless alarm system.
"The privately held firm, based in Kent, Wash., estimated its assets at between $1 million and $10 million, and its debts at between $10 million and $50 million"
Wow, and I thought my checking was screwed up. Let me see... yeah, I can safely confirm that I have between $1,000 and $10,000 in my checking account right now. Sheesh
Great, just another excuse for people to "wait" for the better, cheaper technology to come out. I've been working in the photovoltaics industry for many years now and people have been talking about cheap solar cells for well over a decade. In 1989 we were promised solar cells as cheap as $2 watt by 1995. In 1994 we were promised solar cells as cheap as $1 watt by 2000. Now in 2003 we are promised solar technology that will cost 20 cents/watt within a couple years "if production goals can be reached". First of all this will never happen. Just like a car powered by water will never be brought to fruition. Even if it were technically attainable, the powers that be will prevent any of this "threatening" technology from becoming available to the masses.
Today's solar cells cost roughly $4/watt (larger modules - 75 watt output or higher, smaller modules can be $10+/watt) and the rest of the system's components including the inverter, disconnects, wire, over-current protection, mounting equipment, monitoring electronics, (and batteries for autonomous systems) can run another $1.50-2.00/watt and installation can cost $1 or so per watt. This brings the total to about $7/watt for a typical grid-tied photovoltaic system. In California, buy-down programs sponsored by the local utility as well as state incentives can chop that price in half bringing the cost to only $3.50/watt after it's all said and done. I've seen numbers where that kind of system can pay itself off in only 5 years especially if the utility has some sort of TOU (time of use) metering program.
Already we are looking at a 20% ROI for a solar system installed today, at least in Cali. So what if solar cell prices drop to 20 cents/watt? Well, that would bring the cost down for the entire nation to that of Cali prices and allow anyone to take advantage of a pretty much guaranteed 20% ROI investment or better. But that won't be the end result - it will be much better than 20%. If solar cells dropped to anywhere near even $1/watt or $2/watt, inverter manufacturers such as SMA, Xantrex, and Sharp will sharply drop their prices on inverters down to 40 cents/watt or less (current wholesale cost is approx 65 cents/watt) because of the huge increase in demand. Installers will not be as "specialized" anymore because of the ubiquity of solar systems and in due time all electricians will be competent in photovoltaic installations. This will subsequently bring the installation rate down as well to maybe 50 cents/watt (from current $1 or so per watt) Once it's all said and done we'll be looking at installed cost at probably less that $2/watt for the entire system BEFORE incentives (keep in mind that 20% ROI is at approx $3.50/watt). And that isn't competitive with regular electricity states in most states - IT DARN WELL BEATS THEM. So if you could install a pv system that saves the world, saves you money, and is pretty damn cool, wouldn't you do it? Of course you have to consider that electricity rates vary by state and places like CA, NY, and HI would be the big winners but if prices become as low as noted above, I'd say at least 15-20 other states would be in a pretty sweet zone to go solar.
Now what will this do to the utilities? Well, they would be losing TONS of business. All that money they put into infrastructure improvements won't get paid off because too many people are utilizing free solar energy to power their homes. So utilities will eventually go out of business and the world will be a happier place. NO. That's why solar will never be 20 cents/watt or even $1/watt. Because the powerful evil empire won't let it happen and they'll do whatever it takes to make sure of that.
I'm a happy-as-can-be Honda Insight owner for 2 1/2 years. I'm averaging 57.4 mpg in ALL city driving. No problems at all whatsoever and my extended warranty is good till the end of 2006.
The average laptop today consumes approx 20 watt-hours. How do you tell? Simple, look at the size of the batteries. Most have approx 40-60 watt-hours of storage capacity and they usually power the laptop on average 2-3 hours. I have an enormous P4 16" LCD Sony Vaio (only one month old) and the battery lasts on average, about 2 1/2 hours. The battery has 65 watt-hours of storage. I can't imagine any laptop sucking more power than this behemoth.
Hmmm, 5 cents per fuel cell at double the actual cost? Fruit punch sold in cans here are about $.60/can. I can by the concentrate (same drink maker) in a gallon for about $4. The concentrate will make 16 gallons or so for about $4. So if you do the math I can make a can full can worth of juice out of about 1.2 cents worth of fruit juice. But wait - the can of juice costs 60 cents. If we use the same multiplier we're looking at contents of the fuel cell cartridge costing 50 times more than the fuel itself (purchased per SINGLE gallon). Now this does not even take into account the fact that the cartridge will inevitably be more expensive to produce than an aluminum drink can. So my guess is that the cartridges will cost $3-$5 a pop. This is EXPECTED.
Haha. That's funny. I forgot where I read this but ink jet ink (the generic refillable stuff) costs about 4 cents per GALLON yet they still charge about $5 per little itty bitty cartridge. I can't imagine the ink costing more in true "OEM" cartridges either and they cost $30-$40 per itty bitty cartridge. Ink is essentially free. Methanol is essentially free. But those darn plastic cartridges are so damn pricey. My guestimate is that an "OEM" refill cartridge will cost about $5 for maybe 10 hours worth of runtime. Generic ones will be available in the $1.50-$3 range. 10 hours = approx 150 watt-hours of electricity (at least on my Sony Vaio) or about 1 cent in electricity. One cent vs. $1.50-$5. That's a real tough one...
Fuel cells, like batteries have to be replaced. Estimated life expectancy for a "micro-fuel cell" is anywhere from 500-5,000 hours. A Li-Ion battery can carry you through 2,000+ hours. And you're dreaming if you think you can just toss in your own mixture of methanol and water. Any impurities will drastically reduce the life of the fuel cell and definitely void any warranty you may have on it (you know the manufacturers of these fuel cells will not, in a million years, make them easily refillable by the consumer). I agree that 10 hours of runtime is indeed a big plus for many users but the fuel cell is not the practical solution. At least not with current prototype technology.
Uhh, you fail to mention that the fuel cell itself will eventually have to be replaced too. Estimates (depends on which company and level of utopia they are in) are anywhere from 500-5,000 hours of runtime before replacement of the fuel cell is needed. I would guess the average Li-Ion battery is good for 500-600 cycles. At 4 hours per charge, that's 2,000+ hours. So there is an obvious cost-per-refill of the fuel cell outside of the fuel itself. With the fuel cell you're double-screwed. So your argument is pretty much moot.
Then after listening to a LOT of it, especially the stuff that you know was actually composed by a human, something new happens:
You start to listen to the world around you (traffic, nature, conversations) as if it was composed. Imagining a single intention behind the noise of the world. It really is a beautiful mindset. See the restaurant scene in the movie "32 Short Films About Glenn Gould." http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0108328/ [imdb.com]
Slashdot Mirror
I was interested in those mirrors with built in lcd tvs until I found out they cost between $2,500 and $6,000 for a smallish mirror and 8-10" screen. If anyone knows where this stuff comes cheap, please let me know.
If I'm going to waste that much energy to iron my shirt, I'd rather spray some water on it and toss it back in the dryer (which consumes about 3,000 watts) for 10 minutes. That'll take care of the wrinkles, save me $1,700 and a lot of space.
Since we're on the topic, could someone tell me what is available out there to power my laptop off solar energy? I'm looking for something compact enough to fit in my laptop bag. I would also use it to charge my digital video recorder. I know they are pricey but I'm willing to spend up to $300 or $400 if it does everything I want it to.
So what if global warming is not caused by humans? If it really is a farce we should just continue to burn coal and oil to provide electricity and pump absurd amounts of gasoline into our vehicles, right? Well, last checked, burning gas, coal, or oil also produces other nasty pollutants (other than CO2) that cause awful things like acid rain and kill little children with asthma and other breathing ailments. Burning fossil fuels is not just causing global warming, it's screwing up the air we breathe. Isn't that reason enough to want to find alternatives???
What I want to know is how someone this stupid could get so much "cash" to throw around in the first place.
NiMH does not necessarily last longer than Li-Ion batteries. In fact, they usually have lower life cycles. Almost all Li-Ion cells (even the cheapo ones) are rates to >80% of initial capacity after 500 cycles. Most NiMH batteries are good to about the same or sometimes less. The reason why Li-Ion cells often die prematurely is not the result of the cell dying per se, but rather the protection circuit not allowing the battery to supply current or take a charge because the voltage has dropped below a permissable point (usually about 1.75V per cell) Once that happens, you cannot revive the pack unless you bypass the PCM, which is sometimes possible. It's quite sad that many Li-Ion packs hit the trash can prematurely, with life still left in their cells.
From my experience, the only disadvantage of Li-Ion vs NiMH is cost. Li-Ion is currently 2-3 times the cost of comparable capacity NiMH batteries.
NiMH is decidely the lesser of two batteries (compared to Li-Ion chemistry). There is not a single advantage of NiMH over Li-Ion. Not one. Apparently, you were sleeping through batteries 101.
In a word - YES. In fact most farmers would jump on the opportunity to have an electric utility pay them to lease their land. In most cases, the land remains 99% usable (in its original form).
Plants on the north side of a single turbine will get less sunlight per day the closer it is to the turbine, with the land adjacent to the turbine unusable for growing much of anything.
Ummm, have you seen a wind turbine? - they are tall and skinny. Yes, you will lose considerable sunlight near the base of the turbine on the north side (granted you are in the upper latitudes) but the sun also rides on an east-west axis as well so that tall skinny pole will only block out a small area (at max about 50% of the width of the base of the turbine). The turbine itself is so high that the shading effect is negligible (in terms of excessive shading in one concentrated area). I wish I had that study I read from Zond Wind that summarized the impact that wind turbines have on the land in which they are installed. The biggest problem with wind turbines is not really so much the fact that they take up so much land (as most of the land used is either "useless" or "hybridable" because of steep rolling hills) but rather because they kill migratory birdies and they are unsightly (read ugly). Another application is off-shore wind turbines that take up ZERO land. But you can complain that they make a shadow and disrupt proper plankton and coral growth.
"The average home consumes approx 22 kWh/day." I see you used the word "average." Averaged over a week? A month? A year? What ranges of latitudes were included in this average? What's the standard deviation from that average?
Huh? I'll say it again verbatim - the average home consumes approx 22 kWh/day. What doesn't make sense? When I mean home, I mean house - not apartments, which inherently consume less energy. "Average" means some homes may consume 50 kWh/day and some will consume 12 kWh/day. 22 kWh is an AVERAGE for ALL homes. It's also clear in my statement that the average is per DAY. So I'm not sure why you ask my week, month or year???
Let me put this another way: How much electricity does a house at around 37 degrees north latitude in the middle of January need?
I couldn't even try to answer that question. There are much too many variables!! First of all, it makes a huge difference where you are located, the topography, the altitude, etc. If you were in the west at 37 degrees you'd likely get a ton of sun compared to that if you were in the east at the same latitude.
Using that average number pretty much assumes that the house has some sort of energy storage system that can store up energy surpluses and hold onto it for months at a time with manageable loss, as well as able to return that energy with a power output similar to the solar cells themselves. Hydrogen might work here, but then there's the NIMBY issue.
There are a million means to store energy - hydrogen (least mature), super capacitors, water reservoirs (hydro turbine based), flywheels, and batteries (PbA being most mature). There are downsides to all of them but in order to embrace solar technology today, we don't need them. We can use solar to shave our peak loads during the day. The sun happens to shine when utilities demands are greatest. So why not take advantage of it?? We could increase solar installations by a factor of 10,000 and we still won't even come close to needing storage to help reduce our dependence on any other kind of electric generation. That's the bottom line. You make a point that solar is better is some places than others. But in those places were solar is attractive why not move forward???
Well, that statement itself is false. Generally speaking, land has to be cleared to make way for wind turbines but there is a heck a lot of land out there used for the farming industry of which can be used to place wind turbines. When placed on land used for, let's say, raising cattle, the wind turbines are not requiring any additional stripping of land.
In regards to solar, the average home has approx 2,000 sq ft of rooftop. The average home consumes approx 22 kWh/day. A 4 kilowatt photovoltaic system that takes up approx 350 sq ft of roof space (18% of the rooftop) will provide enough power for the entire home. Also, most office buildings (3 stories or less) and warehouses have enough rooftop space to provide >80% of their own power needs. So solar doesn't require any additional land to power at least virtually all homes, low-rise apartments, small office buildings, and all warehouses. So this leaves the power hungry power plants and tall buildings but houses can actually provide some power for these energy dense properties. In Germany, for example, they have enormous incentives for those that sell power back to the grid. A single home could provide enough power to several homes or even augment that of a nearby high-rise building. Even tall buildings can have pv systems installed into their glass windows to supply at least a small percentage of their power needs. All in all, I'm sure we could supply at least 50-60% of all electrical needs with solar if we took advantage of existing rooftop space. 50-60% is a whole heck lot more than the .02% we got now and it doesn't require any stripping of precious land.
How pathetic. You would figure it would include a more technologically advanced NiMH or Li-Ion battery pack for that price.
What if they just shut it down when the car made a stop or slowed to 10 mph? That wouldn't be as unsafe as slamming the brakes at 60 mph. Would we Americans still want to sue? Sorry, stupid question.
I'd pay $740 to install a system like that on my $22,000 Honda. Heck, my insurance discount alone for having this device in my car should be close to $17/month. I get $4.50/month off my premium for a practically useless alarm system.
Wow, and I thought my checking was screwed up. Let me see... yeah, I can safely confirm that I have between $1,000 and $10,000 in my checking account right now. Sheesh
Every little bit helps.
That's less than $1 per "portable" GB. Not bad at all.
I bought two...
Today's solar cells cost roughly $4/watt (larger modules - 75 watt output or higher, smaller modules can be $10+/watt) and the rest of the system's components including the inverter, disconnects, wire, over-current protection, mounting equipment, monitoring electronics, (and batteries for autonomous systems) can run another $1.50-2.00/watt and installation can cost $1 or so per watt. This brings the total to about $7/watt for a typical grid-tied photovoltaic system. In California, buy-down programs sponsored by the local utility as well as state incentives can chop that price in half bringing the cost to only $3.50/watt after it's all said and done. I've seen numbers where that kind of system can pay itself off in only 5 years especially if the utility has some sort of TOU (time of use) metering program.
Already we are looking at a 20% ROI for a solar system installed today, at least in Cali. So what if solar cell prices drop to 20 cents/watt? Well, that would bring the cost down for the entire nation to that of Cali prices and allow anyone to take advantage of a pretty much guaranteed 20% ROI investment or better. But that won't be the end result - it will be much better than 20%. If solar cells dropped to anywhere near even $1/watt or $2/watt, inverter manufacturers such as SMA, Xantrex, and Sharp will sharply drop their prices on inverters down to 40 cents/watt or less (current wholesale cost is approx 65 cents/watt) because of the huge increase in demand. Installers will not be as "specialized" anymore because of the ubiquity of solar systems and in due time all electricians will be competent in photovoltaic installations. This will subsequently bring the installation rate down as well to maybe 50 cents/watt (from current $1 or so per watt) Once it's all said and done we'll be looking at installed cost at probably less that $2/watt for the entire system BEFORE incentives (keep in mind that 20% ROI is at approx $3.50/watt). And that isn't competitive with regular electricity states in most states - IT DARN WELL BEATS THEM. So if you could install a pv system that saves the world, saves you money, and is pretty damn cool, wouldn't you do it? Of course you have to consider that electricity rates vary by state and places like CA, NY, and HI would be the big winners but if prices become as low as noted above, I'd say at least 15-20 other states would be in a pretty sweet zone to go solar.
Now what will this do to the utilities? Well, they would be losing TONS of business. All that money they put into infrastructure improvements won't get paid off because too many people are utilizing free solar energy to power their homes. So utilities will eventually go out of business and the world will be a happier place. NO. That's why solar will never be 20 cents/watt or even $1/watt. Because the powerful evil empire won't let it happen and they'll do whatever it takes to make sure of that.
Talk about a rant..
OK, dubya. Whatever you say..
I'm a happy-as-can-be Honda Insight owner for 2 1/2 years. I'm averaging 57.4 mpg in ALL city driving. No problems at all whatsoever and my extended warranty is good till the end of 2006.
The average laptop today consumes approx 20 watt-hours. How do you tell? Simple, look at the size of the batteries. Most have approx 40-60 watt-hours of storage capacity and they usually power the laptop on average 2-3 hours. I have an enormous P4 16" LCD Sony Vaio (only one month old) and the battery lasts on average, about 2 1/2 hours. The battery has 65 watt-hours of storage. I can't imagine any laptop sucking more power than this behemoth.
Hmmm, 5 cents per fuel cell at double the actual cost? Fruit punch sold in cans here are about $.60/can. I can by the concentrate (same drink maker) in a gallon for about $4. The concentrate will make 16 gallons or so for about $4. So if you do the math I can make a can full can worth of juice out of about 1.2 cents worth of fruit juice. But wait - the can of juice costs 60 cents. If we use the same multiplier we're looking at contents of the fuel cell cartridge costing 50 times more than the fuel itself (purchased per SINGLE gallon). Now this does not even take into account the fact that the cartridge will inevitably be more expensive to produce than an aluminum drink can. So my guess is that the cartridges will cost $3-$5 a pop. This is EXPECTED.
Fuel cells, like batteries, have to be replaced. Do some research. I haven't seen a fuel cell good for over 5,000 hours.
Haha. That's funny. I forgot where I read this but ink jet ink (the generic refillable stuff) costs about 4 cents per GALLON yet they still charge about $5 per little itty bitty cartridge. I can't imagine the ink costing more in true "OEM" cartridges either and they cost $30-$40 per itty bitty cartridge. Ink is essentially free. Methanol is essentially free. But those darn plastic cartridges are so damn pricey. My guestimate is that an "OEM" refill cartridge will cost about $5 for maybe 10 hours worth of runtime. Generic ones will be available in the $1.50-$3 range. 10 hours = approx 150 watt-hours of electricity (at least on my Sony Vaio) or about 1 cent in electricity. One cent vs. $1.50-$5. That's a real tough one...
Fuel cells, like batteries have to be replaced. Estimated life expectancy for a "micro-fuel cell" is anywhere from 500-5,000 hours. A Li-Ion battery can carry you through 2,000+ hours. And you're dreaming if you think you can just toss in your own mixture of methanol and water. Any impurities will drastically reduce the life of the fuel cell and definitely void any warranty you may have on it (you know the manufacturers of these fuel cells will not, in a million years, make them easily refillable by the consumer). I agree that 10 hours of runtime is indeed a big plus for many users but the fuel cell is not the practical solution. At least not with current prototype technology.
Uhh, you fail to mention that the fuel cell itself will eventually have to be replaced too. Estimates (depends on which company and level of utopia they are in) are anywhere from 500-5,000 hours of runtime before replacement of the fuel cell is needed. I would guess the average Li-Ion battery is good for 500-600 cycles. At 4 hours per charge, that's 2,000+ hours. So there is an obvious cost-per-refill of the fuel cell outside of the fuel itself. With the fuel cell you're double-screwed. So your argument is pretty much moot.
Whooahhh! Can I ask what you're smoking?